PDA

View Full Version : Just one example..



Qtec
04-17-2004, 10:07 PM
March 8, 2004

After John Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic nominee for president, the Republican National Committee (RNC) began criticizing his record on military spending. The campaign against Kerry's record escalated on February 22 when the RNC released a list of weapons systems that Kerry allegedly "voted against."

Republican spokespeople used this list to make sweeping claims about Kerry in the media: "I think the more that the president and the Republicans describe accurately-- they don't have to exaggerate at all; they just have to describe accurately and calmly-- what it means...to have voted against every major weapon system," Newt Gingrich declared on Fox's Hannity and Colmes (2/26/04), "I think if they stick to that and stick to the facts, Senator Kerry will react by saying that he's being smeared by his own record."

Partisan TV pundits like Sean Hannity quickly echoed these charges: "He's voting against every major weapons system we now use in our military," Hannity told his Fox News audience (3/1/04). Hannity's participation in the RNC's attack was perhaps to be expected, but he was not the only media figure to simply pass on the Republican allegations without examination. CNN anchor Judy Woodruff (2/25/04) framed the issue this way in an interview with Rep. Norm Dicks (D.-Wash.): "The Republicans list something like 13 different weapons systems that they say the record shows Senator Kerry voted against. The Patriot missile, the B-1 bomber, the Trident missile and on and on and on."

Embarrassingly, Dicks had to explain to Woodruff that most of the weapons "votes" weren't individual votes at all, but a single vote on the Pentagon's 1991 appropriations bill. Woodruff responded with surprise to this information: "Are you saying that all these weapons systems were part of one defense appropriations bill in 1991?"

But Woodruff wasn't alone. Appearing on CNN (2/3/04), Bush-Cheney campaign strategist Ralph Reed explained to anchor Wolf Blitzer that Kerry's record was one of "voting to dismantle 27 weapons systems, including the MX missile, the Pershing missile, the B-1, the B-2 stealth bomber, the F-16 fighter jet, the F-15 fighter jet, cutting another 18 programs, slashing intelligence spend by $2.85 billion, and voting to freeze defense spending for seven years." Blitzer responded by pointing out to guest Ann Lewis of the Democratic National Committee, "I think it's fair to say, Ann, that there's been some opposition research done."

For many reporters, the charges against Kerry's record were recorded as just part of the back-and-forth of a campaign: Fox News Channel's Carl Cameron (2/27/04) explained: "With the GOP attacking John Kerry's votes to cut defense over the years, the Democratic front-runner, once again, counter-attacked what he calls the president's 'mishandling' of the war on terror."

Associated Press reporter Nedra Pickler (2/27/04) noted that "the Bush campaign has criticized Kerry in recent days for voting against some increases in defense spending and military weapons programs during his 19-year congressional career. Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot said Kerry's policies would weaken the country's ability to win the war on terror."

NBC anchor Tom Brokaw (3/2/04, MSNBC) also seemed to accept the charges at face value, noticing that "the vice president just today was talking about his votes against the CIA budget, for example, intelligence budgets and also weapons systems. Isn't he [Kerry] going to be very vulnerable come the fall when national security is such a big issue in this country?

One of the few reporters to take a serious look at the RNC's list-- on which 10 of the 13 items refer to the single 1991 vote-- was Slate's Fred Kaplan (2/25/04). Kaplan noted that 16 senators, including five Republicans, voted against the bill. Kaplan concluded that the claim against Kerry "reeks of rank dishonesty."

Kaplan also pointed out that at the time of the 1991 vote, deeper cuts in military spending were being advocated by some prominent Republicans-- including then-President George H.W Bush and Dick Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time. As Kaplan noted, Cheney appealed for more cuts from Congress: "You've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements."

Cheney went to name the M-1 tank and the F-14 and F-16 fighters-- all of which appear on the RNC's list-- as "great systems" that "we have enough of."

Ironically, Cheney made the rounds on the cable channels on March 2, criticizing Kerry's record in terms parallel to the RNC's release. During an interview with Fox News Channel's Brit Hume, Cheney said: "What we're concerned about, what I'm concerned about, is his record in the United States Senate, where he clearly has over the years adopted a series of positions that indicate a desire to cut the defense budget, to cut the intelligence budget, to eliminate many major weapons programs."

Unfortunately, Hume failed to raise an important follow-up: Why was Cheney now criticizing Kerry for having essentially the same position Cheney advocated back in 1991?

The Bush/Cheney campaign plans to spend $133 million over the next several months in an effort to "redefine" Kerry (Sydney Morning Herald, 3/4/04). If this charge is an indication of the Republicans' approach, then the media would perform a valuable service if they took a keen interest in evaluating the accuracy of such campaign rhetoric.

Q

highsea
04-18-2004, 04:02 AM
Q, That post was too long for my short attention span.

I think what you were pointing out was the simple fact that JK has voted against pretty much all the US defense spending bills that have come before the US congress in his term as a Mass. senator.

So what's new?

JK is a raving f*cking lib. As a country, we won't accept him for a president. He'll probably make a good showing, and the Dems will probably file lawsuits in every fuc*ing state in the union, and the election process will be made that much more of a joke.

Sorry my friend, we need a more middle of the road Dem, more like Lieberman. But can you imagine the fuss the palestinians would raise if a Jew was elected US Pres? Take the sh*t we have now and multiply it by 10.

We're in a no win situation. WTF ,we're used to it.

November is not that far away. I hope you get everything you are wishing for.

-CM

Cueless Joey
04-18-2004, 10:00 AM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

eg8r
04-18-2004, 01:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Embarrassingly, Dicks had to explain to Woodruff that most of the weapons "votes" weren't individual votes at all, but a single vote on the Pentagon's 1991 appropriations bill. Woodruff responded with surprise to this information: "Are you saying that all these weapons systems were part of one defense appropriations bill in 1991?"
<hr /></blockquote> Does this matter? Does it really matter if there was one vote or 10? Is this best argument Kerry's people can muster? In the quotes the author provides, not one of the Reps mentioned they were all individual votes, so what is so inaccurate?

[ QUOTE ]
One of the few reporters to take a serious look at the RNC's list-- on which 10 of the 13 items refer to the single 1991 vote-- was Slate's Fred Kaplan (2/25/04). Kaplan noted that 16 senators, including five Republicans, voted against the bill. Kaplan concluded that the claim against Kerry "reeks of rank dishonesty." <hr /></blockquote> Where is the dishonesty? Those other people are not running for President during a time of war. If they did, then they all would have had the same said about them. Surely the Reps would not bring it to forefront, but if the Dems did their homework (and they would) it would be known.

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, Hume failed to raise an important follow-up: Why was Cheney now criticizing Kerry for having essentially the same position Cheney advocated back in 1991? <hr /></blockquote> Unfortunately, this quote is a great example of liberal hypocrisy (and I agree Cheney might be in the same boat). This is similar to Clarke bantering about Bush's lack of effort in defense of terrorism prior to 9/11 when he was the major player in the Clinton org and did nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
If this charge is an indication of the Republicans' approach, then the media would perform a valuable service if they took a keen interest in evaluating the accuracy of such campaign rhetoric.
<hr /></blockquote> This is a completely retarded statement by the author...Where are the Bush ads that are inaccurate? Kerry did vote against all the weapons systems, the author even admits it, however, weakly trying to hide behind the fact that it was an all encompassing vote.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
04-19-2004, 06:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
...16 senators, including five Republicans, voted against the bill. ... <hr /></blockquote>

That puts JK in a distinct minority. If these bills were so bad why did 84 Senators vote for them.

Hi-C is right. Kerry is too liberal to be elected (see McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale ). His only hope is for something to go terribly wrong in Iraq.

Qtec
04-19-2004, 07:22 AM
They are both members of a secret society.[ Skull and Bones]

I dont trust either of them.

Whatever happens, you will still get some millionare telling the poor whats good for them.
They both serve the same interests.

Vote Nader. Bring back Democracy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

eg8r
04-19-2004, 08:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Vote Nader. <hr /></blockquote> Now that is something I can agree with. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Q if you were a voter here, I would hope you would vote Nader. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r